Apple Introduces New Mac Pro with Nehalem Xeon Processors

[ceres]

1.Grand central isn't even released yet

2.guess what features in regards to multi core/processor/GPGPU usage (also unreleased) Windows 7 will offer ... _the same as grand central_ ... minus the more fancy buzzword easily thrown around in web forums

3. i would recommend to actually look up what the current windows vista kernel actually can do what other OS kernel still can't do

Matter of fact is that most big ass corporations (using Germany´s big caps as reference) use windows server (kernel like to Vista, actually Intel Employees have posted how to convert Server to Workstation tutorial) not any UNIX variants. Obviously, these entities rely heavily on applications that are in dire need for multi core hardware support. If Windows really was behind the picture would be different.
Anyways, gone are the days of the MacPro as the least expensive platform for hardcore computing no matter which OS you opt to install. In Early 08 it was impossible to DIY a system at that former pricepoint.

 

[acidfast7]

You took the words out of my mouth. We will be getting 2, to replace an iMac G5 and a Quad G5. The cost spread over the next 3 years is negligible when I consider that 2 of these might cost me AUD$15,000 and they will produce in excess of AUD$600,000 in income. I still think that is a f@#king great return on my investment.

Exactly ... it's a Mac PRO, not a Mac Hobby or a Mac Home.

In the past year, I've generated about €500K with my Apple equipment and I don't mind paying the money, even if it's not good value. Every experiment I write up and publish generates money and if the shinny Mac PRO helps me do that an extra few hours a week, then it will pay for itself.

How more blatant could Apple be about paying a premium for something designed for professionals ... sigh.

 

[Eidorian]

Exactly ... it's a Mac PRO, not a Mac Hobby or a Mac Home.

In the past year, I've generated about €500K with my Apple equipment and I don't mind paying the money, even if it's not good value. Every experiment I write up and publish generates money and if the shinny Mac PRO helps me do that an extra few hours a week, then it will pay for itself.

How more blatant could Apple be about paying a premium for something designed for professionals ... sigh.

That's what I try to explain to some people. The cost of my Mac is bought back with the work that I do on it.

 

[Furrybeagle]

Dual socket processors aren't that cheap...

Apple regularly used to sell dual proc PowerMacs for $2499, and even a few revisions for $1999.

There are different levels of "support". All those other OSes are at a much higher level, because the developers behind them have been doing it for a lot longer.

Right. Just like other platforms have had for years already.

OS X's first foray into SMP was around 2000.
FreeBSD's was around 1997.
Linux's was in 1996.
Windows' was 1993.
Solaris's was around 1992.

You'll excuse me if I don't think Apple is going to suddenly introduce anything groundbreaking, when they've only been in the game about half as long.

Just because you've been doing something for a long time doesn't mean you're particularly good at it. But ok, if you want to play that way, NeXT designed and produced a small number of RISC workstations based on dual PPC 601s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NeXT_RISC_Workstation). So technically, you could *also* place OS X's (which is based on Nextstep) first foray into SMP around 1992/1993.

Upfront I'll say that I'm no expert on this topic, but it seems like Apple, having *shipped* dual processor systems for quite some time, would have had a lot of experience with SMP systems. But, if you can provide technical reasons why OS X lags behind, rather than a list of dates of the first SMP products from each company, then I'd gladly listen.

 

[Eidorian]

Apple regularly used to sell dual proc PowerMacs for $2499, and even a few revisions for $1999.

As much as even I love to bring up the late Power Mac G4 and G5, they still aren't using Nehalem dual socket processors.

 

[hugodrax]

Neat the high end has a powerboost like my M5

 

[acidfast7]

That's what I try to explain to some people. The cost of my Mac is bought back with the work that I do on it.

I know

An extra 15mins a day of typing is worth 5 hours a month. All the people in the group, get new brand-new top-spec MacBook when they start a PhD (MacBookPros are a pain to lug around) because it keeps them working

 

[HerbyGunther]

No more Quaddro/FireGL options, that is stupid. What about the professionals in the CGI field that want to use a Mac Pro.

The 8 core MP should start at 2,66 ghz.

Indeed as someone else posted before, only 1 DisplayPort.

I'm gonna stay with my Unibody MBP and buy a Dell with i7 for heavy 3D work.

Apple... what's happening to you?

But what the heck, I'm still happy with the updates. Only a bit too expensive for the specs.

 

[commander.data]

Well, the specs of the new Mac Pros definitely leave something to be desired. What is up with using the 2.26GHz E5520? I can understand keeping larger clock speed separation between models, but it'd make a lot more sense to go with the 2.93GHz, 2.66GHz and 2.4GHz models. 2.26GHz looks like Apple wanted to go cheaper, but the next model down, the 2.13GHz E5506 only supports DDR3-800 and that would have really caused a ruckous. Maybe Intel is supplied constrained and so they limited Apple's options since they did get the advantage of pre-launching. The only saving grace is that the low-clock speed of 2.26GHz which would really limit things in poorly threaded programs, which are many, is offset by Nehalem's ability to overclock it's cores if not all of them are in use.

And the GT120 plain sucks. Even the iMac has the GT130 as a mid-range option. And the HD4870 is a mid-range GPU. The headline news is that Apple now longer offers a high-end GPU for the Mac Pro. I thought they were promoting more focus on more powerful GPUs?

 

[dgdosen]

You want to qualify that statement because you're actually dead wrong?

Microsoft kind of preaches the mantra "multi-core application development is too hard - let the OS handle it". Even though MS has supported multi-core app development longer, Apple's developer tools are more geared to build better multi-core aware apps than MS to date. (IMO)

Aside from the work Microsoft is trying to get done on multi-core support, they're also woefully lacking in their move to 64-bit computing. I can't tell you how many times the .Net environment has gotten ****** up with 32 bit and 64 bit binary incompatibilities. It's not all together awful, but it's just a hinderance to need to really watch what's getting installed on a machine and where.

Not to completely bash MS - For someone who works in both environments, I'll gladly give MS kudos for their array of server apps and the ease in which you can develop for them (SQL, WSS, SPS, ASP.Net etc.)

 

[shokunin]

More accurately, as I just said, the Mac Pro is, and always has been (3 years), a ridiculously over priced joke. No one actually buys them if they care about their computer spending finances. No one.

While the (previous) Mac Pro's were expensive, I did not think they were over-priced, unlike the ones released today. Building a dual socket workstation is expensive, and I've built serveral of them before buying the 2006 MP, cost wise it was a wash from DIY perspective and buying a workstation off of Dell or HP would cost the same if not MORE than the Mac Pro. In terms of performance per Apple dollar, the MP has always (until today) been near the top. It may be more dollars than one is willing to spend, but the performance came with it.

Now if you're talking about the Macbook Air which costs the same as the base Mac Pro, then I'd agree, it's ridiculously overpriced. Yet, I bought one anyways.

 

[polaris20]

That's what I try to explain to some people. The cost of my Mac is bought back with the work that I do on it.

No, no, you guys don't understand: this is a home machine. A home machine, ya see?

 

[BongoBanger]

Simple: windows programs will not utilize multiple cores/processors unless they are specifically written to do so. The majority of applications do not, or do so poorly. Grand central will make that process transparent so that even programs NOT written to utilize multiple cores will be able to do so, transparently.

Hang on, are you referring to Grand Central as part of Snow Leopard which you think will allow applications that are serial coded?

Well, yes, it will allow you do do that with some applications but the tools already exist to do that with Windows and Linux - NUMA, CCR and Gentoo spring to mind.

To call the implementation of multi-core processing in Windows piss-poor is horribly naive.

 

[polaris20]

While the (previous) Mac Pro's were expensive, I did not think they were over-priced, unlike the ones released today. Building a dual socket workstation is expensive, and I've built serveral of them before buying the 2006 MP, cost wise it was a wash from DIY perspective and buying a workstation off of Dell or HP would cost the same if not MORE than the Mac Pro. In terms of performance per Apple dollar, the MP has always (until today) been near the top. It may be more dollars than one is willing to spend, but the performance came with it.

Now if you're talking about the Macbook Air which costs the same as the base Mac Pro, then I'd agree, it's ridiculously overpriced. Yet, I bought one anyways.

I keep on saying this, yet no one apparently listens. The previous gen Mac Pro was cheaper than the equivalent Dell, HP, and Lenovo workstations. When you compare it to other commercially available workstations with real support (not a cobbled together one from Newegg.com) it is very reasonable.

The current one probably won't seem overpriced either once the Nehalem-based HP/Dell/Lenovo machines come out either. Obviously no one knows if that's true or not, because this is the first workstation with this chip. But it's an educated guess.

 

[cxi2001]

No, no, you guys don't understand: this is a home machine. A home machine, ya see?

Exactly.......that's why i manage a broadcast edit facility with 5 of them and a music studio at home.

Tried to fit an Avid Nitris DX to my iMac. Didn't work. Funny that.

 

[dgdosen]

2006 Mac Pro - $2,499 Two 2.66GHz dual core ($690 per processor) $1,119 + processors
2008 Mac Pro - $2,799 Two 2.80GHz quad core ($797 per processor) $1,205 + processors

2009 Mac Pro - $2,499 One 2.66GHz quad core ($284 per processor) $2,215 + processor
2009 Mac Pro - $3,299 Two 2.26GHz quad core ($373 per processor) $2,553 + processors

Please explain Apple.

I think this is a pretty good way to look at the numbers. Even if there is an investment in the boards and case redesign, some marketing muck at Apple should take a look at a Laffer curve and figure out how to better maximize revenue and profit on these things... Maybe supply is short right now and they don't care about demand.

 

[shokunin]

Well I have the 2008 octo 2.8 and with these prices I'm going to skip one generation. Just ordering 4870.

+2, my thoughts exactly. Westmere seems like they are ahead of schedule. Let's hope the ramp to 32nm will see better yields and prices in the early 2010 mac pro.

 

[gugy]

Well I have the 2008 octo 2.8 and with these prices I'm going to skip one generation. Just ordering 4870.

+3
Just ordered my Applecare one week ago. Keeping my beast another year. Not impressed with the latest offering. Plus with the economic situation, it's hard to pay more money.

Anyway, I just want a new 30" display!!!!!!!!!

 

[cube]

Where's the xMac?

 

[peterotoole]

MacPro or iMac

I'm going to get a new Mac and slightly confused whether to get the top of the range iMac or the entry level MacPro. Is the new xeon really that amazing and worth the money. I'm a graphic designer working with the usual packages such as the Creative Suite etc and just wondering if i'd see such a massive speed boost from getting the MacPro.

Any help, would be great!!!

 

[polaris20]

Where's the xMac?

Nonexistent, just like it was yesterday.

 

[BlizzardBomb]

Why isn't Apple shoving down my throat that this is hyper-threaded so the eight-core model allows 16 threads to run. That's the one piece of information I would be willing for Apple to shove down my throat on the Mac Pro store page. Instead you have to click "Learn More".

 

[polaris20]

I'm going to get a new Mac and slightly confused whether to get the top of the range iMac or the entry level MacPro. Is the new xeon really that amazing and worth the money. I'm a graphic designer working with the usual packages such as the Creative Suite etc and just wondering if i'd see such a massive speed boost from getting the MacPro.

Any help, would be great!!!

If you can swing the single Nehelem-based Xeon equipped MP, then yeah, it's worth it over a regular 3.06Ghz C2D in the iMac.

 

[drsmithy]

Just because you've been doing something for a long time doesn't mean you're particularly good at it. But ok, if you want to play that way, NeXT designed and produced a small number of RISC workstations based on dual PPC 601s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NeXT_RISC_Workstation). So technically, you could *also* place OS X's (which is based on Nextstep) first foray into SMP around 1992/1993.

No shipping version of NeXT ever supported SMP. So while Alphas (and maybe even Betas) of such support may have existed since the early '90s, they clearly weren't under active development or maintenance.

Other platforms, however, have been under very heavy development - and actively supported releases - for SMP platforms since the dates above. Windows NT (like BeOS) was designed with multiprocessor machines in mind.

Upfront I'll say that I'm no expert on this topic, but it seems like Apple, having *shipped* dual processor systems for quite some time, would have had a lot of experience with SMP systems.

Roughly half as much as, say, Microsoft and Sun, who have been actively developing and maintaining multiplatform operating systems for SMP machines since ca. 1992.

But, if you can provide technical reasons why OS X lags behind, rather than a list of dates of the first SMP products from each company, then I'd gladly listen.

OS X's locking is not as fine-grained, which leads to relatively poor scalability. They've been making steady improvements, but even as recently as Tiger were still getting spanked by Linux. Here are some numbers that demonstrate it.

Basically, it *is* a factor of time. Multiprocessor systems have been around since the '60s, so the low-level problems are well known and understood. However, actually implementing all the theory to deliver excellent scalability takes time, both for the implementation itself, and for the vast amount of QA that must be done to avoid breaking badly-written software. One also needs to consider that SMP hardware has been much more wideavailable in the PC world, and for longer. That is why "how long they've been in the game" is an extremely relevant factor.

 

[shiunn]

Dude, these boards are meant for people to complain if they want... At least they're complaining about something that people want to hear about... .

I agree! Nevertheless, it is quite amusing to see how some ppl can't stand whiners.
And, I think "whiner" is too strong and too negative a word when they're just expressing their individual thoughts, that, when posted under the same thread, seems like a longish whine.